activate_document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load it can: it discloses that this is a focus/activation action on documents that are already open, including never-saved ones, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not say whether unsaved edits survive, whether the operation can fail on a bad title, or how ambiguous duplicate titles are resolved, leaving real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation hint immediately after. The phrase 'also a new one that was never saved' is grammatically awkward and costs a re-read, but nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter source, and the surrounding workflow with open/close/list_documents. The remaining omissions (failure on unknown title, duplicate titles) are minor for what is effectively a window-focus operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the lone 'title' property has no description, so the description must compensate. It does, by stating the lookup is 'by its title' and by directing the agent to list_documents for valid titles, which tells the agent the expected format and source of the value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make an open document current again by its title') and implicitly distinguishes itself from open_document/close_document by naming them as different operations. The clause 'also a new one that was never saved' is a bit muddled but signals the tool targets already-open documents rather than opening new ones.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use it 'after open_document / close_document on another document', giving a concrete triggering condition, and points to list_documents as the source of valid titles. It stops short of stating what happens when the document is already current or when no match exists, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.